Could FamilySearch use AI to generate family trees?

 

The idea of using AI to generate family trees for insertion into the FamilySearch.org Family Tree was raised in an interview during RootsTech 2026 of Elder Mark A. Bragg, a General Authority Seventy and executive director of the Family History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. See Could we ever run out of temple names? Elder Mark A. Bragg on why family history is accelerating.

The fact is that the FamilySearch.org website already has a section with computer generated family trees. You can find this section in the Genealogies directory under the main Search tab. 

This section contains seven different computer-generated trees, but no trees have been generated since 2023. Here is a screenshot of the current selection of files available to search. 

One of the statements made in the video cited above, is that AI is significantly accelerating family history by scraping data from digitized books and records to build out trees automatically. It is certainly true that AI does have the ability to build automatic family trees. However, the reality of creating "family trees" from raw data is not as simple as scraping a book. Despite the ability of AI to scrape a book and build a family tree, the actual reality of the process of creating a valuable genealogical resource is much more complicated. There are several tremendously difficult obstacles to any actual AI generated tree having valid information. None of which were mentioned in the interview above. 

Back in 1894, with the formation of the Genealogical Society of Utah, the predecessor of FamilySearch, the main concern was preventing the duplication of temple ordinances. See Allen, James B., Jessie L. Embry, and Kahlile B. Mehr. Hearts Turned to the Fathers: A History of the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1894-1994. BYU Studies, Brigham Young University, 1995. One of the key issues in the demise of the predecessor of the FamilySearch Family Tree (new.familysearch.org) was the proliferation of rampant duplication of the ordinances. My great-grandfather, Henry Martin Tanner, had his temple ordinances done over 800 times, despite the fact that he performed the ordinances during his lifetime in the St. George Temple.

With the current state of the FamilySearch Family Tree, the issue of duplication is by far the most serious. My own experience is that any time I do research for adding names to the FamilySearch Family Tree, I routinely find duplicate records. Taking a set of records from any major European country and including most of North and South America would produce a significant number of duplicate entries. If AI is able to create a valid family tree, then why not use it to eliminate the duplicates that are currently in the FamilySearch Family Tree? 

Another major issue with the FamilySearch Family Tree is the existence of "floaters," who are people and segments of family trees that are, in a real sense, floating around the main FamilySearch Family Tree because they lack any connections. Many of these floaters are duplicates and also are not currently readily available for inclusion, if they are discoverable at all, because of a lack of more specific information about their existence and identity. 

 An undercurrent of the concept of computer or AI-generated family trees is the issue of whether or not individuals, such as all of the currently active genealogists contributing to the FamilySearch Family Tree, have any future utility. If my job is going to be turned over to AI, then why am I spending time doing research and verifying names through careful application of the genealogical proof standard if it is only necessary to identify a name from a book to qualify for entry? Name extraction has, in the past, created a tremendous number of duplicate entries. It is still common on the FamilySearch Family Tree to find English records with duplicates because births, marriages, and burials were all extracted separately. A family with six or eight children could have thirty or forty duplicates. Current name extraction programs are also creating a substantial number of duplicate entries.

The current state of the FamilySearch Family Tree, where changes are randomly made to established entries without any supporting data, is also undermining the ability of the tree to function efficiently. Unless these systematic failings of the FamilySearch Family Tree can be adequately addressed, whether by AI or otherwise, it seems vastly premature to propose AI-generated family trees. 

 Since I now work full time essentially as a genealogist with the primary goal of finding and verifying additional people for the FamilySearch Family Tree, I would appreciate it if someone would let me know if it's time for me to retire.

T